Reader Comments (59)

Pretty banal reporting. Also, being originally from the North West side of Bristol I was particularly annoyed by:

Another blogger Adrian Kerton, of Stoke Difford, near Bristol, has also been contacted by Norfolk Police after he put in a Freedom of Information request to the UEA

No idea where Stoke Difford is but I went to a rather excellent wedding at Stoke Gifford church in the summer where the Groom managed 4.5 pints at the Beaufort Arms pub opposite before making it to the altar. His brother was with him in the pub and then proceeded to conduct the service.....great fun was had by all.

Muir Russell and his team, of course, 'knew' that the emails had been stolen; they referred to them as such on their website, which Kate Moffatt of Luther Pendragon defended when I questioned why they were doing so. The Norfolk plod appear to be amongst the few who don't 'know' what happened...

Hang on a minute Adrian Kerton says (12:20) "I'm concerned that Norfolk Police are going to keep my details on file forever for making a legitimate Freedom of Information request.." but he presents no evidence for the causal connection he claims. The police haven't disclosed how Mr Kerton came to their attention other than that it is part of the operation to investigate the hacking of emails from CRU.

@TerrySReally, everybody ? Andrew Montford has sent a number of FOI requests to UEA so where's the report of him being questioned? At any rate your comment is anecdotal it doesn't prove cause and effect.

I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.

The carbon traders are now getting very worried that the fake science [they didn't know it was fake] they have been funding for decades is going very wrong.

Monckton has triggered this response because by directly accusing UEA and other 'scientists' of fraud, a lot of investment is probably going down the pan.

So, that part of the establishment which stands to lose by the canning of the scam is muscling in to try to make terrorism charges stick.

Meanwhile, the rest of the establishment is waking up to how deadly the effects of this carbon trading future will be, understanding at last that it's a Marxist/Fabian conspiracy to take away their control.

The latest example is the EU carbon tax on aviation which may well trigger protectionism.

Barry , the email to CTM is the first and only thing Ive seen that shows Police are looking at FOI requesters. It says "we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA." It doesnt say in that email anything about the timing of said requests. Where do you get the "police are on the record of contacting people who sent FOI's BEFORE..." ?

To answer your question ' why are you so quick to be contrary' - it's called skepticism !

"I think the police don't understand what they're doing. They've raided a blogger in Yorkshire but all the information that they required would be on servers in the United States."

It would appear that the Norfolk police are even more clueless than I suspected. It appears that they think that they can find FOIA by reading the logs of who posted a comment on a blog some time ago -- and that for some reason, he had all those logs on his computer in Leeds. While the IP address would possibly be recorded, anyone who was smart enough to obtain the emails would know enough to use an anonymous server.

Hard to believe that none of the teenage children of the plods involved hadn't explained that to their dads.

TerryS, I'm fact checking Barry's assertion that Police are focussing on people that sent FOI requests to UEA before climategate. And (by implication) they wont be interested in Andrew Montford because "Andrew sent FOI's to UEA AFTER the leak" which is plainly wrong because Ive shown an FOI request by Montford from before climategate 1.0

Ive never said Adrian Kerton lied. Please don't make things up you only make it more difficult to get at the truth.

Why do sane people think it is appalling that anyone who sent in an FOI request to the UEA is questioned by the Police, and people like Hengist think it is the proper thing to do? How do you reconcile the fascistic tendencies of warmenizers with free speech?

I'm fact checking Barry's assertion that Police are focussing on people that sent FOI requests to UEA before climategate.

Barry never said the police are focussing on people that sent FOI requests. He said the police contacted people that sent FOI requests. This is true. It is verified by those who sent FOI requests and by the police themselves.

And (by implication) they wont be interested in Andrew Montford because "Andrew sent FOI's to UEA AFTER the leak" which is plainly wrong because Ive shown an FOI request by Montford from before climategate 1.0

So Barry made a mistake about Andrew's FOI request timings. Big deal.Andrew had contact with the police in January 2010.

Ive never said Adrian Kerton lied.

Those were not the words you used, but the implication was clearly there.

Bruce:"Why do sane people think it is appalling that anyone who sent in an FOI request to the UEA is questioned by the Police, and people like Hengist think it is the proper thing to do?"

More to the point, what sane person would think that everyone who sent in an FOI request to the UEA is a potential suspect in the alleged leak/hack? If the plod are contacting everyone who has made FOI requests to UEA without considering their context or relevence to the CAGW issue and the released emails, then its sounds more like an attempt to warn off others from making similar requests.

I'm neither supporting Hengist nor having a go. But the obvious question is begging:

The police are investigating the 'unauthorised release' of UEA emails (are we okay with this terminology?).

They are going down a list of people who submitted FOI requests to UEA and asking them about their interest. This is relevant to the investigation and (to me, at least) entirely to be expected at this point (ie after CG 2.0).

I appreciate that nobody wants the police on the phone asking questions, however nicely. But I also suggest that there is no persecution, no fascism, indeed nothing at all out of the ordinary going on here. Just boring old procedure.

Wow you guys are sure working overtime with the misrepresentations tonight. Did I say it was proper for Norfolk Police to direct their investigation toward FOI requesters ? NopeDid I say Adrian Kerton lied ? NopeDid I suggest Police focussing on FOI requesters was time relevant? No I did not, that was Barry

Sorry people I have better things to do than spend my evening correcting the irrelevant diversions and misrepresentations propagated on this blog (and especially on this thread). Goodnight

The police are investigating the 'unauthorised release' of UEA emails (are we okay with this terminology?).

Just who says that they are "unauthorized"? We have no idea who released them and just what authority they may or may not have had. It may well have been a system administrator with all the proper passwords who did it. Now if we were to say "alleged" or "possibly unauthorized released" then we would be closer to the truth as we know it.

"Hang on a minute Adrian Kerton says (12:20) "I'm concerned that Norfolk Police are going to keep my details on file forever for making a legitimate Freedom of Information request.." but he presents no evidence for the causal connection he claims. The police haven't disclosed how Mr Kerton came to their attention other than that it is part of the operation to investigate the hacking of emails from CRU"

I made a legititmate FOI request to UEA so why did the police contact me? Is it against the law now to make an FOI request?My wife is cared stiff that because I published a paper suggesting global warming is natural and because the police rang me because I made an FOI request the door is going to be smashed down and my computers seized.Norfolk Police have emailed me saying that my details might remain on file for however long they want to regardless of the progress of the investigation, which appears to be going nowwhere.If you wanted to contact me before jumping in why didn't you contact me via my webpage? I guess you do know how to use an internet search.

@BBD:"They are going down a list of people who submitted FOI requests to UEA and asking them about their interest. This is relevant to the investigation and (to me, at least) entirely to be expected at this point (ie after CG 2.0)."

Even the greenest Norfolk Plod having just fallen out of the haystack, should been able to tell from the text of each FOI request whether, it is or not relevant to the investigation and worth following up. Otherwise it is a shotgun approach that smells to me of intimidation. My IT skills are limited but I know that FOI requests are tedious and time-consuming. If this was a hack, I suspect whoever did it went for the direct approach, rather than wasting time making a request.

"I appreciate that nobody wants the police on the phone asking questions, however nicely. But I also suggest that there is no persecution, no fascism, indeed nothing at all out of the ordinary going on here. Just boring old procedure. "

I think it is out of the ordinary to pursue people making legitimate FOI requests. They should only pursue subjects if they have information that leads them to suspect an involvement in crime. They should not be allowed to go on fishing exercises upsetting law abiding folk.

Why did they need 6 officers to go to TallBloke’s unless the intent was to cause fright?

“I think I may have had too many pints myself. I am actually from the North East side of Bristol, which is why I really do know where Stoke Gifford is!”

See my history of Stoke Gifford www.akk.me.uk

Bad Andrew"...did I have any academic qualifications..."

I guess not having them makes you a suspect of something?

I have an HND and an MSc [+OAP]

Carsten ArnholmThe video is unavailable outside of the UK.Now on YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10lUiNvpOYM&feature=youtu.be

I wish you all a Merry Christmas. Except Hengist!

From us ("the wishors") to you ("hereinafter called the wishee"):

Please accept without obligation, explicit or implicit, our best wishes foran environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, lowstress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solsticeholiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religiouspersuasion or secular practice of your choice, with respect for thereligious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choicenot to practice religious or secular traditions.

Please also accept, under aforesaid waiver of obligation on your part, ourbest wishes for a financially successful, personally fulfilling andmedically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of this calendar year ofthe Common Era, but with due respect for the calendars of all cultures orsects, and for the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religiousfaith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you acknowledge that:

This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal at thewishor's discretion.

This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall bemade to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishorare acknowledged.

This greeting implies no warranty on the part of the wishors to fulfilthese wishes, nor any ability of the wishors to do so, merely a beneficenthope on the part of the wishors that they in fact occur.

This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or therestrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certainjurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishors.

This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected withinthe usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until theissuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of thiswish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father Christmas", "OurSaviour", or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, deador alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them.